Democracy Dies in Boredom

"People can get away with a lot when what they're doing seems really boring." 

Jim Geraghty recently wrote this in a longer criticism of modern reporting, and how it focuses on the dramatic to society's detriment.

Coincidentally, something extremely boring but potentially ground-shaking happened in the last week. The new chairwoman of the FTC undid a rule codifying the consumer welfare standard test of antitrust put in place back in 2015. Bored yet?

Coverage: New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal

Each of these newspapers covered the story in a similar way yet only the Wall Street Journal considered it important enough to include in the paper version. The headline story in the Washington Post is about the alleged fraud at Trump organization. Other stories on front page include a fine charged to the Washington Football Team and a wildfire preview. The prominent story in the Economy & Business section is about an 82-year-old woman who will go to space. The Wall Street Journal summarized the story in a side column with full write-up at top of A4.

What's happening at the FTC is enormous and is an illustrative lesson in how Democrats can push the envelope a lot more than Republicans can because the media apply a much higher level of scrutiny to Republicans. 

Here's a list of precedent-breaking actions taken involving the chairwoman of the FTC that if a Republican had tried would be met with a cry of the demolition of democratic norms:

1. Though she was nominated to be just a member of the FTC and was voted on with that presumption, after she was approved, Biden made her the chair of the FTC. I don't know if Republicans would have voted for her had they known that to be the case, but this is not the norm (Axios), and it sows ill will between the parties. Republicans voted for her (in a misguided attempt to get big tech, not as a olive branch of bipartisanship), but this gives a reason not to trust Biden or even Democrats. If perchance you are a Democrat who thinks this is fine, imagine how you'd feel if Trump had done the same. Interesting that neither the Times nor the Post mentions this break from precedent. Additionally, I'm sure if the the political affiliations were switched, we'd be seeing dozens of stories and air time about the 32-year-old ideologue with little experience being named to chair the FTC as an omen of how Republicans are trying to install people who put their beliefs over good governance and thereby subvert the FTC's important legacy and mission.

Politico runs down several of the actions taken after she was sworn in

2. Made the FTC meetings public. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I tend to believe that cameras make democracy work worse as it makes the agents do more for publicity and popularity than for good. The real problem is that this again broke with precedent, was not fully discussed with everyone, and an agenda was not provided to prepare the commissioners. This, too, serves to breed distrust which even if you want the publicity and the activism, do you want every agency in an internal war? There's really no defense for not giving your colleagues a heads-up.

3. Eliminated the FTC's administrative law judge and replace with "the chair or a person of her choosing." I remember in the Trump years when Democrats and the left used to talk about how great neutral actors were, like the inspectors general and Robert Mueller and also with the George election reform, how politicians shouldn't make those decisions. Here we have the chairwoman removing a layer of neutrality, on a partisan vote. Does this represent the kind of democracy you want or do the ends justify the means?

4. Reduced the onus to start investigations to one person. As Politico points out, this is likely because the Democrats will soon lose their majority which will impede their ability to open investigations so Khan is giving herself more power to ignore half of the FTC.

5. Repealed a bipartisan statement from the Obama era. The FTC had prided itself on remaining relatively bipartisan, and in 2015 issued a statement that they would follow antitrust law as it was then being adjudicated. Khan and the two Democrats defenestrated that show of comity. This is the action that fully exhibits the ideological, activist nature of Khan & team. For decades, the standard has been that the FTC challenges mergers that will hurt consumer welfare (generally lead to higher prices or less competition). This has been the test that courts apply as well. But Khan is famous for saying that this isn't good enough, that mergers should be checked for a long list of progressive priorities such as  benefits, worker rights, environment, social justice, etc. To ensure companies are promoting progressive values, Khan has skipped any votes by Congress and will just apply a historically failed standard unilaterally. 

6. Cancelled all FTC's staff public appearances. This one is nearly impossible to believe. The FTC staff often discuss their work and analysis in public. This gives them exposure helps improve their own understanding of the issues and helps the public understand what they do. With no notice, Lina Caesar has declared that no public appearances will be allowed. Banning public appearances is an interesting way to provide “ample transparency and opportunity for public participation.” I again encourage you to compare to the wails we heard in the early days of the Trump administration at similar actions.

It's unclear what impact these actions will have. Khan is going up against decades of jurisprudence and can't actually change the laws but only enforce them. Corporations will be very unhappy and will make their unhappiness known. What is clear, though, is that Khan does not represent the return to bipartisanship Biden promised. She represents many progressives' desired version of democracy - a bait-and-switch commissioner jamming through partisan, precedent-breaking, ideological changes to policy disconnected from any legislation. What was that Washington Post motto again?

How the Left Wins - Marjorie Taylor Greene Edition

The Marjorie Taylor Greene situation perfectly exemplifies how Democrats (and the media) do business to break all the rules and not look back.

For those who don't know, Marjorie Taylor Greene (or MGT for the twitterati) is a US Congresswoman from Georgia who has said some pretty outrageous things. I will not defend her sanity, her qualifications, her suitability for Congress, or her suitability to serve on committees other than to say that typically the media serially exaggerate, so she's probably not as crazy as they are projecting.

What I wish to debate is the narrower issue of whether or not the Democrats should strip her of her committee assignments. Every elected Congressperson is assigned committees to serve on in their respective legislative body by their party. The committee seats are allocated depending on the overall breakdown of the parties within their house. For example, if there were 50% Republicans and 50% Democrats, then the committees would each be 50/50, too. 

The Democrats, though, want to remove Congresswoman Greene from her assignments. This is unprecedented, and Republicans argue that the Republicans should be the ones making this decision, not the Democrats. More broadly, considering the larger implications, should the Democrats do this, they are breaking a precedent and setting a new one, one in which the majority party can decide who serves on committees for the minority party. This is the argument. Looking forward, it's very likely that even if Democrats have a good argument that Ms. Greene shouldn't be on committees, what's to prevent that standard to erode over time?

This is exactly why Republicans have lost and will always lose. They are much less willing to break precedents and erode these standards. In addition to that, the media are much less protective of standards and precedents when Democrats are breaking them. A legitimate and informative media would have focused on the bigger picture arguments instead of hyping up all of Ms. Greene's statements. But this way, what does the American public think about the situation - only that Ms. Greene has said some crazy things and should probably be punished somehow. Since the only punishment being floated is removal from committees, they assume that's the proper punishment and agree it's reasonable. 

In a nutshell, this is how Democrats and the media ceaselessly and successfully push the culture in their direction. First, they misinform the public by telling them one side of the story, the easy side, the provocative side. Not only that, but they build up the argument against by pointing to the most extreme elements that support their side. They completely ignore the legitimate arguments on the other side, and they break precedent. Finally, years from now, one of two things happens: 1) They do it all over again and move the ball farther forward towards their own goal or 2) When Republicans try it, they use all their tactics against the Republicans, and if Republicans say, 'yeah, but you didn't say anything before' then they dismiss that as 'whataboutism'.

The Media Then and Now

Several stories from President Biden's first two days in office really illustrate how differently the media treat President Biden from President Trump.

Pete Buttigieg's nomination to be Secretary of Transportation (compare to Trump's nominations) - 

The nomination and Senate hearings of Pete Buttigieg
National Guard Kicked out of Capital
Biden's 100 million vaccine goal
Biden violating his own mask mandate

Try to imagine if any of these stories occurred during Trump's presidency and how the media would have covered them. Compare to how they're being covered now. Thinking about that, it's clear that the media's approach to the Trump years consisted of the following:

1. Ignore all context. Remember the spate of "racist" Cabinet nominees? The formula was simple, find one action they committed throughout their life, that could be interpreted as racist and then call them racist full stop. Ignore everything else about their life. If someone called them a racist in their past, then they are a racist full stop. Do not under any circumstances write a full story about the sum total of their life and the counter-examples. The press repeatedly ignored context in stories about Trump to paint everything as egregious. When he moved the embassy in Israel, there was scant mention that every president had promised to do so. 

2. Interpret the story in the most negative way. For Cabinet nominees, if they only have private sector experience, lambast them for not having government experience. If they have government experience, criticize them for getting questions wrong. Ignore all the positive aspects. If one answer is wrong, then they are unqualified. The embassy story is another good example; how many people decried the move and said it meant the end of peace and imminent war? How many outlets pushed back?

3. Assume the most evil motivation. The press commonly attributed Trump's actions to evil intentions. They laid the groundwork for this by constantly claiming he was a racist and an authoritarian. Then when he would do something they didn't like or they misinterpreted, they would explain it by his being one or the other.

4. Assume that President Trump was responsible for anything bad that happened. This would apply to the story about the National Guard. There would be many stories about how awful this action was, and the assumption that Trump was directly responsible. Then they would talk about how he hates his base and he treats them like garbage. 

How many on the left blame Trump for the Covid economy? Was Trump responsible for Covid? How does he compare to European leaders? Are other European leaders blamed for their Covid economy? There's no question that Trump could have handled Covid better, but the fact that several European countries did just as bad demonstrates that Trump wasn't uniquely bad. How often do you see comparisons of US to countries that are worse? A responsible media would show how US performance compares to countries better AND worse. Not just the countries that are better. The vaccination story is similar. The US is a top-5 vaccinating country, both in absolute terms and daily. Therefore, the media don't report on that, or if they do, they compare us to Israel, which is the best.

5. Repeat the same stories that the other outlets are reporting. This will serve to amplify the story. Notice how negative stories about Biden, where they exist, are extremely isolated.

6. Point out, amplify, and ridicule every hypocrisy and mistake. Imagine if Trump had issued an order that masks be worn on federal property and then was on federal property with a group of people unmasked. How many stories would be written about that? What would be the tone?

There's no question that the corporate media treat Biden differently than Trump. Since I can't fix it, and I doubt anyone can, it's vital that we illustrate this to as many people as possible so that they're aware of how they're being manipulated.

Google's Glaring Hypocrisy on Section 230

A debate has been active in Washington for months over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996. In essence, Section 230 protects internet companies who host comments or any user-created content from being held liable for what the users post. In the past six months, some Republicans, annoyed with the perceived political bias from media companies such as Twitter and Google, most notably, have been threatening to rescind that immunity claiming that the companies treating conservatives differently makes them ineligible for the protection.

While there is evidence that the media companies are biased against conservatives (considering the proportion of conservative content that is removed), arguing that their 230 protections should be removed is a stretch.

While Google argues that they should be protected from private lawsuits based on comments, however, it seems they believe that de-platforming other sites for user-generated comments is right and proper.

NBC News reported The Federalist to Google (side note: several stories and tweets (1, 2, 3) provide the quote "Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention" but that does not appear in the story...anymore.) based on some media "watchdog" group, and then reported that Google was demonetizing The Federalist. Google then clarified that it was just warning The Federalist about some comments (that have not been listed) and it had three days until "a ban goes into effect."

So, in a nutshell, Google is threatening to punish The Federalist for comments left on one of its stories, at the same time it is telling the government that it shouldn't be held responsible for comments left on their many sites.

Many tech journalists are arguing that it's not inconsistent at all, that Google is not the government and Google has a right to do this. This is missing the point of the inconsistency. Of course Google is not the government, and Google has this right. The point is that Google wants a power (punishing other companies for comments on their site) that they don't want used against them. Other claims are that Google wants protection from the government, not private parties. Private parties are free to do as they choose. But that's not correct either. Section 230 also protects Google from lawsuits from other private parties based on the comments.

Granted, they're not the exact same situations. No one is claiming that they are. If you look at the specifics and details then you can argue that these aren't the same situation. However, if you look more broadly at the underlying action "punishing other platforms for comments", then there is definitely an inconsistency. Everyone should acknowledge that there is some inconsistency here, even if there are countervailing details that reconcile them.

Compare and Contrast: Flynn Edition

On Friday, the transcripts of Flynn's discussion with Kislyak at the center of the entire Flynn story were declassified. This is the conversation that Flynn was accused of and admitted to lying about the contents and was not provided to Flynn's defense team despite numerous requests.

The New York Times says it proves Flynn "discussed sanctions at length" during conversation. Conversely, Margot Cleveland of The Federalist says the transcripts show the opposite.

I encourage everyone to read both, but start with Ms. Cleveland's take. Then, compare and decide which is the stronger case.

It is surprising to me that Cleveland's relies much more on facts and explanations than does the New York Times. The latter, for example, does not mention the difference between sanctions and expulsions. This question seems to be the crux of the discussion. Was Flynn talking about one but not the other, as Cleveland suggests, and are they actually distinct issues where the distinction matters. At least Cleveland points out this difference and makes the case; the Times story doesn't broach it at all.

Notice, too, how the New York Times, while claiming Flynn discussed sanctions, they never quote Flynn as ever saying sanctions, they just imply that Flynn's statements regarded the sanctions, not the expulsions (or both).

It is definitely possible that the Times authors believe them to be the same thing. It's also possible that Mueller's team believed them to be the same thing. But again, Cleveland makes a strong case that they are different, and her case is definitely strong enough that it should be a point of discussion and not omitted entirely.

"The First Casualty of Hyperpartisanship is Nuance"

Democrats and the media are over-reacting to Flynn case. There's a legitimate case they can make, but instead are jumping to the extreme argument of Barr being corrupt while completely ignoring the questionable facts about the investigation. When news media completely ignore salient facts that go against their narrative and instead double-down on a simplistic narrative like 'Barr only did what he did because he's corrupt and a loyal Trump soldier', readers should be on their guard.

The May 8, 2020 episode of Left, Right, and Center had an enlightening exchange that highlights that the pundits who are criticizing Flynn are avoiding conservatives' valid arguments.

The Flynn discussion is the first topic they discuss, but the most maddening and instructive dialogue starts at 3:25. Rich Lowry lays out point after point about why he accepts the DoJ's actions:

• There was no predicate for investigation.
• The Logan Act has never been prosecuted, the last attempt to prosecute was in the 1850s.
• It is a Constitutionally dubious law.
• Incoming National Security advisor talking to Russian ambassador does not show he might be Russian agent.
• The FBI interview was an ambush interview; Comey bragged about going around normal procedures. They deliberately kept Flynn off his guard.
• Flynn thought he was having conversation with a peer in government.
• FBI knows what was said in conversation
• There is a dispute over whether agents thought Flynn lied.
• FBI does nothing for 10 months. Then Mueller squeezes Flynn gets him to plead guilty.
• Flynn under financial pressure, possibly personal pressure.
• This is a travesty and the Justice Department deserves credit for undoing it.

The "Center" host, asks the guest if that's a fair characterization. The guest, Ken White, a former federal prosecutor says, "Not at all. None of that is true."

Ken White claims none of the details Lowry spoke are true. This is obviously incorrect. It is demonstrably false that everything Rich Lowry said is untrue. Logan Act has never resulted in a conviction. Last indictment was 1852.  "Comey bragged to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace in 2018 that he flouted the usual protocols for interviewing a top White House official." FBI knows what was said in conversation." Andrew McCabe: "The two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn't think he was lying." Flynn's interrogation is January 24th, is fired on February 14th, and the next action against him is November 5th, so not 10 months but around 8. Does "Flynn pleads guilty" really need corroboration? Flynn under financial pressure, possibly personal pressure.

I've avoided the obvious opinions which can't be verified. But the fact that FBI was ready to close the case on Flynn before this phone call and interview speaks to whether there was a predicate. There's definitely support that the Logan Act is constitutionally dubious.

So, given all this, the strong corroboration that Lowry has for everything he says, why would the other guest, the former federal prosecutor, throw that all away and say "none of that is true." It is because something about thy Flynn case and Bill Barr and Trump turns a switch that obscures the facts that don't align with their dislike and prevents them from seeing nuance.

The debate continued, and White followed up his ludicrous statement about Lowry with the argument that the DoJ isn't being sincere, that if they were sincere, they would act to put an end to those "ambush tactics" the FBI used. "I would be thrilled if those values were reflected in the future in the way investigations are conducted. This doesn't reflect policy, it reflects politics."


The Left's official representative, Christine Emba, adds, "He had a constitutional right to remain silent. He didn't. He talked, and he lied. That lie came to light." But this argument is inapt. The FBI didn't read him his rights before hand, they, actually suggested he not have a lawyer. For a normal American, if the police or the FBI comes knocking on your door, your going to be on your guard and be very careful with what you say. If you're the incoming National Security Advisor, these are your coworkers, and you have an expectation that they're going to be helping you not interrogating you. I would like to live in Christine Emba's vision of the world. Where the FBI tries to talk to other government officials, at the White House, in Congress, and no one will talk to them because if they misspeak at anytime, the FBI can send them to prison. I suppose Christine Emba is doing the Left proud and pushing us towards a police state.

But then White reveals his actual position. He agrees with Lowry that Flynn shouldn't have been prosecuted! "I'm not fervent about prosecuting him. I think it's a bogus prosecution. I think this type of 1001 is a bogus prosecution." Of course, this wasn't his thesis. He started by talking about how the DoJ was in the wrong. How does he reconcile those positions? "I think that the hypocritical bogus justifications being given are transparent and a corruption of the justice department. We both know that these arguments are not going to be brought to bear again for anyone's benefit. They're only being brought to bear for Flynn."

This is an absolutely legitimate position to hold, and in fact, he made me question the DoJ's motivations for its actions. But this wasn't where he started. He started by implying he disagreed with Barr, but in reality he agrees with the action they took but is unhappy that they only selectively applied that standard to a Trump supporter.

Alan Dershowitz said "The first casualty of hyperpartisanship is nuance." This is unfortunately true and hyperpartisanship is winning.

The New York Times's House of Cards

What has happened to journalism? Am I overly idealistic? Has it always been this bad, and I just didn't realize it. Have most Americans already accepted the truth of journalism?

Imagine this hypothetical: Corrupt law enforcement agents break the law to punish people of the opposition party. They fail in their endeavor, the cases are dropped, and the targets are exonerated. Then the media pronounces that the government who freed them is corrupt and ignores the problematic process.

This situation does not occur with an independent and legitimate press. This is sensationalist, activist press, the kind you'd expect in dystopian fiction or countries where a dictatorship controls the media.

This was a hypothetical case, but it could be true, and many Americans believe that the FBI agents behind the Flynn case and the Carter Page FISA warrant let their politics override their faith to justice. Maybe those Americans are wrong; maybe the FBI agents were acting in good faith. The facts are, however, that they bent and broke many laws to get what they wanted. With the FISA application and then with the Flynn case.

There are three possibilities:
1. The FBI agents involved were extremely biased and believed punishing their enemies was more important than rule of law, and Bill Barr righted those wrongs.
2. The FBI agents involved were slightly biased and bent the rules a bit too far in pursuit of legitimate investigations, and Bill Barr undid the damage.
3. The FBI agents involved were completely professional, did everything by the book, got a bad guy, and Bill Barr let him off because he's Trump's lackey.

Do we have enough information to know for sure which is true? Does any journalist?

A responsible journalist has an obligation to report these facts. A responsible journalist should recognize that this is a complicated situation and doesn't have an easy answer. An irresponsible journalist jumps to possibility 1 or possibility 3 and tosses around over-generalizations like "Barr is corrupt and he doesn't that you know it." or "The attorney general is turning the Justice Department into a political weapon for the president."

The second quote is written by the editorial board of The New York Times, and is deeply, deeply irresponsible. They are taking a complicated situation, one that's clearly in the gray where there's not enough information to make a real determination as to everyone's motives and deeds, and deciding that William Barr, the attorney general is corrupt. The left's opinion writers are expert at taking many stories, over-interpreting them, and then putting them together to create the illusion of a strong case. This opinion piece is a terrific example.

The thesis is that Bill Barr is a political actor and has politicized the Justice Department. They start with a piece of a statement Barr made in response to a question, that without the full Barr statement makes him sound like he's be happy as long as he wins. Then they talk about Watergate and the reforms that followed it. "To Mr. Barr, these reforms were obstacles to a vision of a virtually unbound executive." This is followed by a statement Barr made about the power of the executive. Instead of arguing against that statement, they simply compare him to England's King George III. Barr said "the president 'alone is the Executive branch', in whom 'the Constitution vests all Federal law enforcement power, and hence prosecutorial discretion." Is that wrong? Isn't this a question for constitutional scholars to debate? Maybe it is wrong. Is it clearly wrong? If Obama's attorney general had said it, would The New York Times proclaim it as indisputable?

Whether it's right or wrong, it's a reasonable interpretation, and Bill Barr is not the only person who thinks so. Many, many legal scholars, who believe in civil rights and want an independent justice system, believe this is true. But, The New York Times throws it in, interprets it as "Bill Barr believes the president is king" and then moves to its next point.

"Bill Barr's America...is a banana republic where all are subject to the whims of a dictatorial president and his henchmen." These are the words of Donald Ayer, that the Times goes on to agree with. This is such an egregious exaggeration of the facts, it has no place in The New York Times. The United States is not a "banana republic" and the actions of Bill Barr do not come close to being "whims of a dictatorial president and his henchmen." Donald Ayer was likely playing up his opinion to get press coverage and headlines. This is not a statement that was meant to accurately portray the state of the country. It is another irresponsible statement that sensationalizes instead of informs.

Next, the Times says Barr "misrepresented the contents" of the Mueller report. A "federal judge called Mr. Barr's characterization of the report 'distorted' and 'misleading.' Both of those come complete with links to back up their take. If you follow the "misrepresented the contents" link, and you read the whole story, you find that what they mean by "misrepresented the contents" was "didn't include all of the context with your accurate summary." There is no argument that Barr said anything untrue or misleading. The complaint is that Barr's summary didn't include context. How ironic that The New York Times calls it "misleading" when the full context is excluded. By that standard what should we call this editorial that doesn't mention a single one of the rationales given by the Justice Department in dropping the Flynn case?

The link to the second quote does more of the same. Claiming Barr misled the public by omitting context. The judge found it "misleading" that while Barr's statements were true, they were too narrow and left out many findings that would've cast doubt. Again, if this is a definition of "misleading" then The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR and every news outlet is misleading. It is not that they leave out any context, because providing all context would be impossible. They leave out necessary context. For Flynn, they leave out the fact that the edits went on longer and involved more people than was standard; for Ukraine, they always called Jonathan Turley, the "Republican scholar" because Republicans called him, but they always omitted the fact that he was a long-standing Democrat who disagreed with them; when they discuss Trump's Charlottesville comments, they ignore that he explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and White Nationalists'. Name the story, Kavanaugh, Ukraine, FISA warrant, Russia, and the media are always telling you one side and leaving out inconvenient facts for their narrative.

The next paragraph is a litany of decisions that Barr made and liberals disagree with. Each decision Barr made was a reasonable decision. Maybe the decisions were wrong, but enough fair-minded people agree with them, that it's unfair to paint them as evidence that he's corrupt. He believes that the Russia investigation was improperly started. Is that evidence of corruption? Is the attorney general disagreeing with an inspector general so nefarious? How hard would it be to find previous attorney generals disagreeing with inspectors general? Obama and Democratic representatives disagree with court decisions, does that make them corrupt, too?

He called the investigation "spying." In other words, he said that confidential informants who were reporting the actions of Trump affiliates spies to law enforcement and intelligence agencies "spying."

He reduced the DoJ's recommended sentence for Roger Stone. Every knowledgeable person who looked at that case thought the recommendation was too high. Even so, the recommendation was merely a recommendation, it was the judge's ultimate decision. And the recommendation, even amended, included several years of jail time. By any metric you consider this, it was not a perversion of power, and yet, The New York Times is heaping onto a pile of other flimsy arguments hoping the volume of criticisms amounts to a real case.

It doesn't, and it shouldn't. The New York Times is using their history and the reputation they've earned to peddle a house of cards. Each thin and flimsy, but arranged in such a way that projects an illusion of a substantial argument. It is not; and every American needs to realize that these opinions collapse with the gentlest of breaths.

Upside Down Media Coverage

Of all the poor journalism exposed by the current novel coronavirus (the initial "Nothing to worry about stories", then the reactionary "Trump denies Governors' Requests for Ventilators Stories" which National Review's Rich Lowry reviewed), the current Media implications that Democratic governors who toe the line on shelter-in-place orders are the heroes of the pandemic while science-hating Republican governors (and those protesting) who want to move toward opening are evil are among the most bizarre.

The Guardian's Josh Wood published a story praising Kentucky's Democratic governor for acting so quickly, compared to Tennessee's Republican governor, and suggesting that the former's Beshear saved lives with his quick action.

"Combined with his quick pandemic response, his calm, empathetic daily briefings have seen his popularity explode in recent weeks." This is an example of mood-affiliated praise that the media piles on Democrats and never Republicans, even though these assessments of "calm and empathetic" might be considered subjective.

The story purports that Kentucky has fared much better as the number of cases in Kentucky didn't rise as quickly as in Tennessee, but the story doesn't really take into consideration a number of factors that may explain that. Other important factors to consider are the populations of the two states (Tennessee has about fifty percent more people than Kentucky), the population density (Tennessee's is approximately 50% higher), and the urban environment (Tennessee has two sizable cities). All of these would help explain, in part, why Tennessee's numbers are higher than Kentucky's even had they reacted at the same speed.

Secondly, the reliance on total cases may be misleading. As of yesterday, Tennessee had nearly twice as many cases as Kentucky, but as the story points out, this could potentially be because of disparities in testing capacity. The better number to look at is deaths.

Again, as of yesterday, there were 166 deaths in Tennessee and 171 deaths in Kentucky. So, even though Kentucky's governor reacted more quickly, and has the smaller population and population density, there are more reported deaths in Kentucky! In fact, when comparing the number of deaths per population to the population density, Tennessee ranks 10th for fewest deaths. Kentucky ranks 19th. So who's actually doing better?

Who's doing the worst? New York. Democrats and the Media are currently working on a Draft Cuomo movement so he can be the Democratic Presidential nominee because of how well he's handled the Coronavirus, which defies common sense. Most of the criticisms lobbied at Trump for poor performance can also be applied to Cuomo. Neither of them took January and February to prepare, to stockpile medical equipment, testing necessities, to prepare their populations for a coming pandemic. They actually performed very similarly to each other, and to most elected officials. Neither really expected the pandemic to have a large effect. Both were wrong. But Cuomo was more wrong, given the especially gruesome impact it has had on his state.

The fact that he receives as much praise for his handling, in fact, that all Democrats do, while Republicans receive only scorn despite the fact that their responses weren't all that different from each other and the data suggest that the outcomes are worse in Democrat-led areas shows how upside-down the coverage is.

Finding the Lead Lining

This morning, prior to the announcement of last week's initial unemployment claims, I was curious whether they'd be higher or lower than last week. Lower would be good news, obviously, and higher bad news. So, when I saw they were slightly lower, I thought, well that's good, at least things have stopped getting drastically worse.

Imagine my surprise when I saw the headline "22 Million Workers File for Unemployment Benefits in Just 4 Weeks". I thought, 'That's a negative way to put it.'

Then, I did a quick survey of other outlets, and they all report the four week total! It seems quite odd to me that every outlet reports the monthly total over the weekly total, and not a single one of them notes that this is down from last week's peak.

CNBC

CNN

Fox Business

New York Times

Wall Street Journal

Questions for All - Medicare for All Primer for Journalists

Now that Kamala Harris, a top-tier Democratic candidate for President has announced her support for Sanders's Medicare for All plan, it's time for journalists to start asking tough, informed question. Because we all know how hard that is for them, here is a primer to get them started. Hopefully, they might use this to actually inform the public unlike what happened with Obamacare, where I defy you to identify a single story in the New York Times or on cable news that included the fact that about 1/3 of the uninsured at the time were illegal immigrants and 1/3 were eligible for Medicaid but had not enrolled. Of the latter group, it is almost certainly the case (but we will never know since the media didn't report on it), that these uninsured were healthy individuals who were reasonably waiting until they needed healthcare before enrolling. If Americans had known this ahead of time, then they wouldn't be surprised to find out that Obamacare has reduced the uninsurance rate by only 40-50%. But of course, that fact is barely mentioned these days either, and if so, it is assuredly blamed on the states that did not expand Medicaid.

Which leads into the first set of questions. First, "What problem(s) is Medicare for All supposed to solve?" For this, I have a suspected answer: to reduce the uninsured rate to zero and lower the costs. Any knowledgeable journalist or citizen should immediately remember that Obamacare was advertised as a solution to both problems. In the run-up to Obamacare's passage, not a single news story caveated that Obamacare would only reduce the uninsurance rate to 5-10%, not a single news story (from traditional sources) warned that Obamacare would not reduce costs, they instead repeated the administration's claims that it would lower costs. Remember, "bend the cost curve down"? The fact that the Democrats now want to fix both of these problems should be a constant reminder that Obamacare failed to solve these problems and not a single serious journalist warned Americans about these predictable shortcomings.

For specific questions, first, I want to congratulate Jake Tapper for asking a terrific question of Harris--is she in favor of completely eliminating private insurance. This is a clear outcome of the Sanders Medicare for All plan, but then, he is an avowed socialist. To which, at the risk of an over-abundance of praise, we should laud Senator Harris for replying that yes, she does want to eliminate private insurance. Her team tried to backtrack, and then later stood by her original statement. It's currently a little unclear as to what she thinks about private insurance, but we can be confident that this issue will come up again. This is the first question that should be asked of every candidate, "Do you want to, as the Sanders plan does, completely eliminate private insurance?"

Some follow up questions:

"Do you know how many people are employed directly or indirectly through the private insurance marketplace? What will happen to them? Does your plan include paying their unemployment and helping them find new jobs?"

"Will your plan do anything to make investors in these companies whole? How much money will investors, pension plans, and retirees lose from your nationalization of insurance?"

The second set of questions involves Medicare Advantage. President Obama and the Democrats tried to mortally wound Medicare Advantage by reducing payments to MA plans through the ACA, but it, to the surprise of everyone, grew after the passage of the ACA. For those who don't know, Medicare Advantage offers Medicare recipients a private option to compete with traditional Medicare. Approximately one third of eligible seniors choose an MA plan in lieu of traditional Medicare. As far as I know, the Medicare for All plans do not mention Medicare Advantage, but I would assume they want to do away with it. 

Questions:

"Will your plan, in addition to eliminating the current plans of the majority of working Americans also eliminate the plans of approximately 1/3 of seniors? If Medicare for All does not pass, do you still favor eliminating Medicare Advantage? Do you believe choice is good for consumers in general? What about the healthcare market makes choice a negative factor?"

These questions should be asked of the candidates, not because they're "gotcha" questions, because they aren't. They are serious and important questions that will matter to people. They impact a lot of people's lives and they show that the candidate has done her homework and is not just promising the moon. If journalists start doing their job and actually providing the public information, Americans can replace the epithets they currently hurl at each other with facts.

Questions the Media should have asked about Buzzfeed Bombshell

For those who don't read or watch the news continuously, there was a 24-hour explosion in the Impeach Trump saga, that started with a bang on Thursday and ended with a whimper on Friday.

It began when BuzzFeed, the vaunted news source that brought us the as yet unverified Trump dossier, published a story, from anonymous sources no less, that Trump directed his lawyer to lie to Congress.

It ended when the Office of the Special Counsel disputed, in general terms, the thrust of the BuzzFeed story.

But this was not before it was reported by everyone CNN,

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

The core of the story can be summarized by three paragraphs:

"Now the two sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement.

The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office."

On Friday evening, before Mueller's team shot back, I started to ask some questions that I realized that the media should have been asking. Namely, 1) What was the motivation for leaking this story and 2) Why BuzzFeed and not the NY Times.

On Question 1, suppose you are on Mueller's team investigating this. You believe that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress and you believe you have the proof to back it up. Since the investigation already has what it needs, and it's still going through the normal investigative process to be followed up by the prosecutorial process, what reason do you have to tell the media? It will be given to the media in due course, as soon as Mueller finishes his report.

The most likely reason I could think of was that the sources must NOT have believed it was going to see the light of day for whatever reason. Most likely because the evidence was too weak. (This turns out to be even more likely considering the Mueller dispute).

The second question I asked was why these sources would talk to BuzzFeed instead of the New York Times or Washington Post, for example. Why not go to a much more credible and established news outlet. This information was absolutely enormous and consequential. If I thought it was important enough to get into the news, I'd go straight to the top, why didn't these sources? Again, the likely answer is that they did not want the scrutiny from those sources or they knew it would be called into question and did not want to sully either of those companies.

I admit that maybe there are good reasons I didn't think of, but my point is that these are important questions that the media should have asked, but they did not. Probably because they prefer to breathlessly report bad news for Trump than to actually do their jobs.

Update: I heard a viable reason to leak the news. The timing of the presidential election and the investigation will make it difficult to complete impeachment proceedings before election day if they wait until the investigation is complete. Leaking gives Congress a reason to begin immediately. This was suggested in the 18 hours between the initial story and the Mueller rebuttal, and so is now moot. Even if true, this shows that the leakers were trying to short-circuit the investigative process and does not explain why Buzzfeed.

Media Arbitration

Here are some news articles regarding the recent change in the arbitration rule. (In ascending order of support for the change - liberal at the top; conservative at the bottom)

Bryce Covert - Slate
Renae Merle and Tory Newmyer - Washington Post
Jessica Silver-Greenberg - New York Times
Lisa Rickard and David Hirschmann - RealClearMarkets
Norbert Michel - Fortune

Just a little background first. Banks have been increasing their use of clauses that deny its customers the ability to join class-action lawsuits should they have complaints, instead forcing them into arbitration. This was done by adding an arbitration-only clause into that 50,000 page agreement you sign when you open an account. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, ostensibly charged with protecting US consumers from bad bank policies/behavior issued a rule to prevent banks et al. from any such restriction. Republicans last night undid that rule allowing banks to preclude class action lawsuits.

After reading many of these articles, I really can't say for sure whether class action lawsuits are better or worse than arbitration for consumers who have been (what's a nice word for) cheated by banks. The main arguments for arbitration seem to be that their faster and they have a higher payout per person (though it's hard to know what exactly that means when it's possible that fewer people try for arbitration). Also, any payout will go directly to the consumer and not go into the pockets of the lawyers. The main arguments for class action are that you're more likely to have an advocate (class-action lawyer) who will work to ensure a payout and conviction, they're more public, and they're more accessible. In addition, it's rarely consumer-friendly when companies are restricting your options to complain about them, so anyone should be immediately dubious of this policy.

All that being said, I think the CFPB's main duty here is to inform consumers. That's one of the most useful things government can do. In this case, it could inform consumers of their rights within arbitration, whether they can bring a lawyer, how consumers could initiate a complaint and go through the process, what are some issues that consumers should be aware of, what cases other people have brought and what their outcome was. There are many, many things that can help consumers.

My main point, however, is that those three paragraphs I wrote are not in any of the news articles on this topic. The first paragraph was basically in each, the second paragraph's separate arguments might be in one or the other depending on the source, and the third paragraph is unheard of.

I'd encourage each reader of this entry to read the Slate article and think about every sentence/paragraph and whether it's talking about whether the rule itself is pro- consumer or anti-. Some examples:

First paragraph: "Under cover of darkness, the Senate voted Tuesday night, with a tie-breaker from Vice President Mike Pence, to undo a rule that had been a major win for consumers against banks."

Scary. "Under cover of darkness...". An assertion that the rule was pro-consumer, let's read more!

"Instead, consumers are pushed into a private arbitration process when they have a complaint, where the odds are steeply stacked against them."

More scaremongering: "pushed", "steeply stacked against them".

Historical context: "Forced arbitration wasn’t always legal: It was barred until 1925, when Congress passed a law allowing companies to use the clauses in disputes between themselves."

See, the people before 1925 knew what was good.

"But most people, understandably, don’t even realize that they’ve signed them. Who takes the time to fully read a product agreement, let alone understand the legalese that means they’re giving away the right to join a class-action lawsuit? The CFPB found that these clauses alone run about 1,100 words on average, with some as long-winded as 2,500 words, and that they are typically the most complexly written part of a contract."

People are being tricked. Banks are trying to get away with this. Then the "why are these so long and complicated complaint."

"Consumers stand little chance of getting relief when they’re pushed into arbitration: Companies have a lot of control over who will oversee and arbitrate the cases. Only about 60 percent of consumers go into arbitration with a lawyer at their side, but companies are always represented. And once an arbitration decision is made, there’s usually no recourse to change it. In one case study, debit cardholders who were able to join a class-action lawsuit got $1 billion via 18 settlements over their allegations of illegal overdraft fees. Those who went through arbitration because they either weren’t allowed to join, or opted out, got nothing at all."

Aha. Finally, the money paragraph. Notice that the lawyer point isn't necessarily good or bad as it doesn't deal directly with whether consumers benefited or lost out eventually. (As an aside, we should remember that the left is not aghast that school's deny lawyers to men accused of sexual assault on campus.) Then, the author cites a single instance where class action resulted in a better outcome for consumers.

After that, the author talks about recent issues at Wells Fargo and Equifax and how they relate to these arbitration clauses without discussing whether that resulted in lower payments for consumers or the lack of paid damages. Then about how Republicans like the financial industry.

So to sum up, in over 900 words on how the Republicans' change will harm consumers, there's a single, concrete claim with evidence related to actual damages, and that was an anecdote. On the other side, there was no mention about the benefits of arbitration, OR, importantly, the vital question of whether the arbitration process tends to result in more losses for consumers or what lawyers' cut is.

Is balanced news really that difficult?

Dems ask Trump admin to keep young people's health costs high

From thehill.com (edited to show the perspective of a less powerful demographic group) 

Senate Democrats are urging the Trump administration not to move forward with changes to ObamaCare that could lead to increased healthcare costs for older Americans decreased healthcare costs for younger Americans.

In a letter to Tom Price, the newly confirmed secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Democratic Sens. Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand warn against adjusting the age rating requirement in ObamaCare.

The Huffington Post reported last week that a forthcoming HHS regulation could change the ratio set under ObamaCare on how much more insurers can charge older people than younger people.

“We write to express our serious concerns that the Trump administration is reportedly considering a change to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that would have the direct impact of increasing health insurance costs for older adults decreasing health insurance costs for younger adults and ask that this policy be removed from consideration,” the senators wrote.

“We oppose rolling back consumer protections established in the ACA that protect older Americans from discrimination codify discrimination of younger Americans. Loosening the age rating requirements in the ACA without also expanding advance premium tax credits is a misguided policy that will make health insurance less affordable for millions of Americans more affordable for millions of Americans.”

Right now, the ratio is 3:1, meaning insurers can charge older people, who tend to have higher health costs, three times as much in premiums as younger people. Insurers have long been pushing to loosen up that requirement and allow for charging older people more while charging younger people less. 

The Huffington Post reported that the Trump administration is considering a regulation to change the ratio to 3.49:1, under the theory that 3.49 still “rounds down” to three and therefore follows the law. 

Republican-sponsored bills in the House would change the ratio to 5:1. 

“We are concerned that the reported proposal to relax the age band will amount to an insurance company give-away at the expense of older adults to the benefit of younger adults,” the senators said. 

AARP, the powerful seniors lobby, has threatened to sue the Trump administration if it follows through on the regulation.

How the Media Deceive

Sarah Kliff's title is a little more neutral, but if you read this story, and think about it, it's clear that one title is misleading and the other is accurate. It's true that both title's are technically correct, but one leaves out relevant information (the fact that Maryland's rates are already pretty low), and, therefore, provides no information about how Obamacare will affect premiums.

I would've given the paper a pass if it said something like "Rates could fall by as much as X %".